State v. Headen’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently December 2001 · most notably State v. Oliver (1981), State v. Nelson (1979)
51 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Mapp v. Ohio · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Reliability is the lynchpin in determining the admissi bility of identification testimony. . . . The factors to be considered are set out in Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199 -200_ These include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fisher · State v. Oliver““The first [question] concerns the legality of the pretrial identification procedures, viz., whether an impermissibly sug gestive procedure was used in obtaining the out-of-court identification. If this question is answered negatively, our inquiry is at an end. If answered affirmatively, the second inquiry is whether, under all the circumstances, that suggestive procedure gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.